The book that must be

Bram Stoker

The 100th anniversary of Bram Stoker's death is being commemorated by a series of conferences and publications across the globe. Not only is the subsequent output a boon for Dracula scholars, but vampire enthusiasts will reap the benefits, too! With all due respect to Mr. Stoker. Ahem.

One standout, in my opinion, is a conference that'll be conducted by the Trinity College Dublin's School of Languages, Literatures and Cultural Studies on April 20th—the date of Stoker's passing. It's called, 'Vampire (&) science: a trans-disciplinary conference'. While I'm only familiar with a few of the participants—Clemens Ruthner, Christian Reiter and David J. Skal—it's the essay topics that've really got me hooked. Take a look at the list!

I'd name a few of particular interest, but they all sound fantastic! I'd end up reproducing the whole thing. If you happen to be in the area, note attendance is free. Yes, free.

My first thought on viewing the line-up—well, after my initial excitement—was: are they going to be published? I contacted the event's organiser, Clemens Ruthner, and asked, 'This may be premature, but could you tell me whether a book will result from the papers, a la Vampirismus und magia posthuma (2011). The papers sound fascinating. It'd be such a shame if they weren't published.'¹

Ruthner replied, mentioning that he'd 'try to get the papers published at a good academic press.'² Hell yes! I then offered my assistance, should he require it.³ I wasn't talking out of my ass, either.

A while ago, John W. Morehead—of TheoFantastique fame—forwarded me a link to his Kickstarter project, The undead and theology. Once I'd familiarised myself with its intended contents, etc, I promised to provide the remaining 'assistance' necessary by the required due date. And I did. As a result, the book will see publication. That's how much I care about this stuff, folks. Mind you, it was making pretty good headway without my help. So clearly, there's still a market for this stuff.

Now scroll through the Trinity College Dublin papers again. Who wouldn't want to read those? What publisher wouldn't want a piece o' that! Seriously. Bring it on. I wouldn't care if they were handwritten on foolscap, I'd still buy it. Publishers, if you're looking for something to print, keep your eyes on the Trinity College Dublin conference!

If you can't, somehow, bring yourself to publish that delectable selection, I'm sure we could raise a few pennies passing the hat around Kickstarter...

---

^{1. A Hogg, email, Thursday, 5 April 2012 8:17:07 PM↩}

^{2. C Ruthner, email, Thursday, 5 April 2012 11:38:37 PM.↩}

^{3. A Hogg, email, Friday, 6 April 2012 1:35:07 PM.↩}

Dracunews

Wikipedia

As Niels points out, 2012 marks the 100th anniversary of Bram Stoker's passing. His death was largely overlooked at the time, due to the aftermath of a certain event. Bad timing, Bram!

Niels' post also reveals that Constable & Robinson—the modern incarnation of Dracula's original publisher, Archibald Constable and Company—will be releasing a facsimile edition of the 1897 novel. The pre-release prices for the hardback edition are, how should I put this—exorbitant. However, paperback copies will be far cheaper.

I'm sure the book will be invaluable to Dracula scholars, as an original text, rather than various abridged versions published over the years. But did you know Stoker's work was republished with edits made by the author, himself? That's the 1901 edition. Transylvania Press reprinted it in 1994. Unfortunately, it was a limited to a press run of 500 copies—all sold out.

Barring the original works, themselves—which sell for thousands—the upcoming facsimile and the 1901 abridged edition reprint would be perfect companions to Bram Stoker's notes for Dracula: a facsimile edition (2008).

Speaking of companions, John Edgar Browning has complied and annotated Bram Stoker’s Dracula: the critical feast, an annotated reference of reviews and reactions, 1897-1920 which will be published by The Apocryphile Press. So, stay tuned for that.

He's previously co-edited Draculas, vampires, and other undead forms: essays on gender, race, and culture (2009), edited The vampire, his kith and kin: a critical edition (2011) and co-wrote Dracula in visual media: film, television, comic book and electronic game appearances, 1921-2010 (2010). He even made contributions to S.T. Joshi's Encyclopedia of the vampire: the living dead in myth, legend, and popular culture (2010).

The guy's a machine. He's been involved in consistently good works, too, so if you see his name attached to something, chances are, it'll be a recommended purchase.

All up, 2012 looks like it'll be a great year for Dracula scholars. Let's not forget upcoming conferences like the University of Hull's Bram Stoker and Gothic Transformations on 12-14 April and Bram Stoker: life and writing, which will be held on 5-6 July at Stoker's old stomping ground, Trinity College, Dublin. You can read about other commemorative events via Stoker's estate website.

London conference

Playing god with monsters

Speaking of Bell's blogs, he mentioned his recent attendance at the Institute of Germanic & Romance Studies, University of London, as part of an international conference called 'Vampires: myths of the past and the future' (2–4 November 2011).

His presentation—'American vampires and the ongoing ambiguity of death'—took place on the 2nd. As is usual with English language vampire conferences, the papers primarily focus on novels and film. That said, good to see a fellow Melbournite—Ken Gelder (Reading the vampire, 1994)—among the crowd.

Here's hoping they're published, a la the 2009 Vienna conference. I've already contacted the IGRS to find out. Let's see what they say.

Why'd they get the chop?

Nerds in Babeland

I noted several papers 'missing' from Vampirismus und magia posthuma im Diskurs der Habsburgermonarchie (2011) and wondered what happened to 'em.

I contacted one of the book's editors, Christoph Augustynowicz, asking, 'What are the reasons their contributions weren't incorporated into the anthology'?¹

He responded in a promptly: 'thank you for your interest, the paper of Berhard Unterholzner is included, the others didn’t deliver their papers – simple as that.'²

I double-checked Niels' listing for the Unterholzner contribution—he was right. It's there. Whoops! However, in the same e-mail, I also asked if he could put me in touch with Sigrid Janisch, 'as I'm very interested in reading her paper'. True story. But no reply to that query. Ah well. She's not an easy woman to find. If you're reading this, Sigrid, drop me a line!

On the plus side, I had successfully tracked down Thede Kahl, who told me, 'I have never send a paper for that conference. I presented some aspects, but did not find the time to fromulate [sic] my ideas in a written form.'³

So, no conspiracies. No under-par papers. They're 'missing' simply because they weren't submitted. Mystery solved.

A real shame, though. I've found a document presenting summaries of the papers. Karin Barton's 'Der Habsburger Floh: Zur Kultur- und Literaturgeschichte eines vampirischen Insekts' (The Habsburg flea: notes on the cultural and literary history of an insect vampire) provided 'a brief survey of flea-literature in the Holy Roman Empire, starting with the late medieval and pseudo-Ovidian Carmen de pulice which combines the motifs of sex and death with vampiric overtones, to the prominent Renaissance trope of the war between fleas and their allegedly preferred hosts, women.'

Thede Kahl's discussion, 'Bewahrung und Verdrängung von Vampirgeschichten in Nordgriechenland und Südalbanien' (Perpetuation and suppression of narratives of vampires in northern Greece and southern Albania) cited 'examples of the three regional languages (Aromunian, Albanian, Greek) for the loss of an oral tradition on different levels', promising to 'show, what the processes of forgetting have in common, as well as how the attitudes (conservation, suppression) of the narrators and the audience differ.'

Lastly, Sigrid Janisch's 'Was ist ein Vampir im Habsburger Reich des 18./19. Jahrhunderts? Ein Vergleich anhand von Enzyklopädien' (What is a vampire in the 18th and 19th Habsburg Monarchy? A comparison on the basis of encyclopedias), noted 'The contemporary vampire image considerably differs from the one of the 18th and 19th centuries. The paper focusses on the changes of some aspects of this image and its development as a whole.' I'm sure it would've provided a fascinating insight into the vampire 'evolution' in popular Western consciousness.

As an added bonus, here's the conference's programme guide, so you'll know who spoke when! If you needed to know such a thing, that is.

---

^{1. A Hogg, 'Vampirism and magia posthuma papers‏', Thursday, 15 December 2011 12:29:35 AM, <thevampirologist@hotmail.com>.↩}

^{2. C Augustynowicz, 'AW: Vampirism and magia posthuma papers', Thursday, 15 December 2011 10:44:43 PM, <christoph.augustynowicz@univie.ac.at>. ↩}

^{3. T Kahl, 'AW: Vampirismus und magia posthuma paper‏', Wednesday, 14 December 2011 7:50:20 PM, <Thede.Kahl@oeaw.ac.at>.↩}

Conference papers published

Magia posthuma

While I'm eagerly awaiting my copy of Vampirismus und magia posthuma im Diskurs der Habsburgermonarchie to arrive, Niels received his on Monday (left).

His paper, 'Magia posthuma. a weblog approach to the history of central and Eastern European vampire cases of the 18th century', was published in the book. It mentions my previous blog. What an honour!

He's also helpfully printed the book's contents. For an idea on what the papers discuss, consult his invaluable notes on the conference.

Karin Barton's paper, 'The Habsburg flea: notes on the cultural and literary history of an insect vampire', didn't make the cut; a real shame, considering it 'presented a source from 1866 that mentions the word 'nosferatu', a term otherwise usually perceived as constructed by Emily Gerard in her Transsylvanian [sic] Superstitions from 1885!' But that's ok. I found an earlier source.

That said, if it wasn't for Niels' coverage of Barton's paper, I wouldn't've sought it out in the first place. So, kudos to 'em both.

Sigrid Janisch's paper on 'various definitions of vampires from 18th and 19th century encyclopedias' got the chop, as did Bernhard Unterholzner's discussion on 'vampire debates from 1732 and onwards.'

There's no sign of Thede Kahl's 'field work in Albania and Northern Greece, where he got about 200 tales about vampires, revenants and other entities.' However, Niels does mention his findings 'will be published later this year [2009]', so his work may simply have appeared in another source, like a journal. Might have to chase that up. 

And the others, too, for that matter.

Für deutsche Leser

LIT Verlag

As Niels revealed, the Vampirismus und magia posthuma im Diskurs der Habsburgermonarchie will be out soon. The book features proceedings from the 2009 Vienna conference.

For a taste of what this book'll contain, read his notes on the conference. I'm particularly interested in Christian Reiter's assertion that 'the epidemic in Medvedja in 1731-32 was caused by anthrax. Furthermore [concluding] that Flückinger and co. had falsified their report concerning the corpses not in a "vampire state" with the intent of obtaining remuneration for their examination of the corpses.' I'd love to see how he proves that.

The 'epidemic in Medvedja' refers to the Arnold Paole case. The importance of that case in vampire history can not be underestimated: it gave us the word, 'vampire'. It's because of that case that we know vampires are undead, bloodsucking corpses which you gotta stake through the heart. 

It's because of that case, that the symbolism inherent in the vampire's 'existence' found broader application, giving way to vampire literature—indeed, John Polidori's 'The vampyre; a tale' (1819) was partially inspired by the first English press coverage of the case: 'In the London Journal, of March, 1732, is a curious, and, of course credible account of a particular case of vampyrism, which is stated to have occurred at Madreyga, in Hungary.'

Therefore, imagine if the popularity of the vampire in Western culture started with a guy—who faked a report. Brilliant.